Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6268792" data-attributes="member: 58197">The burden of heavy armor is vastly overstated in D&amp;D. In real life, full plate is no more burdensome than mail; the total weight is not a lot more, and it's much better distributed over the body. And you don't really need much practice to get &quot;proficient&quot; in it--the whole point of armor is that it stops enemy attacks without you having to do anything.If D&amp;D accurately simulated the reality of armor, most PCs would be in full plate from the mid-levels on*. At D&amp;D's standard tech level (mid- to late medieval period, primitive or no firearms), full plate was far superior to other forms of armor. Its main drawback was that it was really time-consuming and expensive to make, so only the aristocracy could afford it. PCs with a few levels under their belts usually have plenty of money, so that's not an obstacle.The rules on armor proficiency and penalties exist for one reason: So that if you, the player, want to have a PC who goes adventuring in leather or mail instead of plate, you can do it without feeling like a chump. As such, if a player wants to take a level in fighter and make an armored wizard, and you aren't seeing any balance issues as a result (it doesn't sound like you are), why not? Carry on.[SIZE=-2]*Though I can think of one reason for not wearing full plate as a &quot;realistic&quot; D&amp;D adventurer: Against big monsters, it wouldn't do much good. If a 100-foot dragon gets a solid chomp on you, the only thing armor will accomplish is to give the dragon that nasty feeling you get when you bite on tinfoil. You're better off lightening your load as much as possible so you can dodge faster. But in that case, you'd be wearing a leather jerkin or no armor at all. I can't think of any reason you'd ever wear chain or scale in preference to plate.[/SIZE]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6268792, member: 58197"] The burden of heavy armor is [I]vastly[/I] overstated in D&D. In real life, full plate is no more burdensome than mail; the total weight is not a lot more, and it's much better distributed over the body. And you don't really need much practice to get "proficient" in it--the whole point of armor is that it stops enemy attacks without you having to do anything. If D&D accurately simulated the reality of armor, most PCs would be in full plate from the mid-levels on*. At D&D's standard tech level (mid- to late medieval period, primitive or no firearms), full plate was far superior to other forms of armor. Its main drawback was that it was really time-consuming and expensive to make, so only the aristocracy could afford it. PCs with a few levels under their belts usually have plenty of money, so that's not an obstacle. The rules on armor proficiency and penalties exist for one reason: So that if you, the player, want to have a PC who goes adventuring in leather or mail instead of plate, you can do it without feeling like a chump. As such, if a player wants to take a level in fighter and make an armored wizard, and you aren't seeing any balance issues as a result (it doesn't sound like you are), why not? Carry on. [SIZE=-2]*Though I can think of one reason for not wearing full plate as a "realistic" D&D adventurer: Against big monsters, it wouldn't do much good. If a 100-foot dragon gets a solid chomp on you, the only thing armor will accomplish is to give the dragon that nasty feeling you get when you bite on tinfoil. You're better off lightening your load as much as possible so you can dodge faster. But in that case, you'd be wearing a leather jerkin or no armor at all. I can't think of any reason you'd ever wear chain or scale in preference to plate.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification